Nurdan KAVAKLI

Bireyleşme ilkesi ve ölçü yargısı üzerine bir inceleme: Sayılabilen isimler ve kütle isimleri ile sunulan kanıt

Bu çalışma, İngilizce okutmanlarının sayılabilen isimler ile kütle isimleri arasındaki ayrımı bireyleşme ilkesi ve ölçü yargısı kapsamında nasıl açıkladıklarını incelemek üzerine yapılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, Türkiye‟nin farklı üniversitelerinde çalışan 15 İngilizce okutmanından, öncelikle sayılabilen ve kütle isimlerinden oluşan karışık sıradaki 50 kelimenin çoğulunu yazmaları istenmiştir. Burada amaç, katılımcıların sayılabilen ve kütle isimleri hakkındaki önbilgisini değerlendirmek ve başarı durumunu saptamaktır. Beraberinde, katılımcılara küme şeklinde resimler eşliğinde verilen, yine karışık sıradaki kelimelerden hangilerinin sayılabilen, hangilerinin ise kütle ismi olduğunu işaretlemeleri istenmiştir. Burada istenen, katılımcıların anlambilimsel haritalarından yararlanmaktır. Son olarak, katılımcılara aynı kelimeler yine resimler eşliğinde verilmiş, araştırma sonrası kontrol etme yoluyla bu kelimelere olan aşinalık derecelerini belirtmeleri istenmiştir. Bunu yaparken, katılımcılardan istenen „çok aşina‟, „bir miktar aşina‟ ve „hiç aşina değil‟ şıklarından birini daire içine almaktır. Burada istenen ise kelimelerin sayılabilirliğini belirlemede aşinalığın etkisini saptamaktır. Elde edilen nicel veriler, betimsel istatistik kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Demografik bilgi olarak, katılımcıların cinsiyet ve öğretme deneyimleri not edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, katılımcıların sayılabilen isimleri bireyleşme algısı ile bağdaştırdığı, kütle isimlerinde ise bireyleşme algısından uzaklaştığı gözlemlenmiştir. Ayrıca, bu araştırmanın sonucu göstermiştir ki katılımcılar sayılabilen isimlere, kütle isimlerinden daha aşinadır. Kelimelerin sayılabilen veya kütle ismi olarak belirlenmesindeki başarı düzeyinde aşinalığın olumlu doğrusal etkisi olduğu saptanmıştır. Bireyleşme ilkesi, cinsiyet ve öğretme deneyiminin etkisinden bağımsız olarak doğrulanmıştır.

Investigating the concept of individuation and judgment of quantity: Evidence from count-mass distinction

The present study aims to explore English as a Foreign Language (hereafter EFL) instructors‟ recognition ofcount-mass distinction regarding the concept of individuation and judgment of quantity. Accordingly, fifteenEFL instructors recruited from different public universities in Turkey were asked to write the plural forms of asum of fifty count and mass nouns given in a list. Participants, then, were asked to rate the elements ofaggregates (either count or mass) in order to identify their semantic mappings. Following these, the participantswere also given a self-rating form to check post-experiment familiarity of those fifty nouns in a random order,and they rated how familiar they were with the items given on a basis of very familiar‟, „somewhat familiar‟ and„not familiar‟. Descriptive statistics were applied as a part of quantitative data analysis. Demographicinformation was given on gender and year(s) of teaching experience. As a result, it was reported that EFLinstructors conceptualized count nouns as distinct individuals whereas mass nouns were regarded as nonindividuals.Familiarity had a probable positive linear effect on success, though. To mention, participants didbetter at aggregate terms for count nouns than those of mass nouns. Besides, aggregate terms for count nounswere judged to be more familiar than those of mass nouns. The principle of cognitive individuation wasconfirmed with no external interference of gender and years of teaching experience.

PDF

___

Allan, K. (1980). Nouns and countability. Language, 56, 541-567.
Bale, A. C., & Barner, D. (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to expore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26(3), 217-252.
Barner, D., Inagaki, S., & Li, P. (2009). Language, thought and real nouns: Individiuation in Japanese, English and Mandarin Chinese. Cognition, 111, 329-344.
Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97, 41-46.
Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2005). No nouns, no verbs? Rejoinder to panagiotidis. Lingua, 115, 1169- 1179.
Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2006). Children‟s early understanding of mass-count syntax: Individuation, lexical content, and the number asymmetry hypothesis. Language Learning and Development, 2, 163-194.
Bloom, P. (1990). Semantic structure and language development. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Bloom, P., & Kelemen, D. (1995). Syntactic cues in the acquisition of collective nouns. Cognition, 56, 1-30.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt & Co.
Bunt, H. C. (1985). Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, C. Y. (1973). Comments on Moravcsik‟s paper. In J. Hintikkia, J. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Approaches to natural language (pp. 286-288). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339-405. Corbett, G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Belder, M. (2011). A morphosyntactic decomposition of countability in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 14(3), 173-202.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gillon, B. (1992). Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 597-639.
Gillon, B. (1999). The lexical semantics of English count and mass nouns. In E. Viegas (Ed.), The breadth and depth of semantic lexicons (pp. 19-37). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Gleason, H. A. (1969). An introduction to descriptive linguistics. London: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Greenberg, J. H. (1972). Language, culture and communication. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Imai, M. (1999). Constraint on word-learning constraints. Japanese Psychological Research, 41(1), 5- 20.
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169-200.
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9-45.
Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3(3), 299-321.
Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1992). Syntactic context and the shape bias in children‟s and adults‟ lexical learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 807-825.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Nouns and verbs. Language, 63, 53-94.
Leech, G. N. (1981). Semantics. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books Inc.
Macnamara, J. (1982). Names for things: A study of human learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Markman, E. M. (1985). Why superordinate category terms can be mass nouns. Cognition, 19, 31-53.
Markman, E. M. (1990). Constraints children place on word meaning. Cognitive Science, 14, 57-77.
Martin, R. (1989). La reference „massive‟ des unites nominales. In J. David, & G. Kleiber (Eds.), Termes massifs et termes comptables (pp. 37-46). Paris: Klincksieck.
McArthur, T. (1981). Longman lexicon of contemporary English. Harlow: Longman.
Middleton, E. L., Wisniewski, E. J., Trindel, K. A., & Imai, M. (2004). Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 371-394.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostler, N., Atkins. B. T. S. (1991). Predictable meaning shift: Some linguistic properties of lexical implication rules. In J. Pustejovsky, & S. Bergler, (Eds.), Lexical semantics and knowledge representation (pp. 76-87). Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the special interest group on the lexicon of the ACL: 17 June 1991. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pelletier, F. J. (1975). Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia, 5, 1-14.
Pelletier, F. J. (1979). Mass terms: Philosophical problems. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Pelletier, F. J. (2012). Holism and compositionality. In M. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality (pp. 149-174). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1989). Mind, brain, and behavior. In A. J. Brownstein (Ed.), Progress in behavioral studies (Vol. 1, pp. 1–6). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ouirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Startvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. New York: Seminar Press.
Soja, N. N. (1992). Inferences about the meanings of the nouns: The relationship between perception and syntax. Cognitive Development, 7, 29-45.
Soja, N. N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1991). Ontological categories guide young children‟s inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition, 38, 179-211.
Sutton, P R., & Filip, H. (2016). Counting in context: Count/mass variation and restrictions on coercion in collective artifact nouns. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 26(0), 350-370.
Ter Meulen, A. (1981). An intentional logic for mass terms. Philosophical Studies, 40, 105.125.
Ware, R. X. (1979). Some bits and pieces. In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Mass terms: Some philosophical problems (pp. 15.29). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wisniewski, E. J., Imai, M., & Casey, L. (1996). On the equivalence of superordinate concepts. Cognition, 60, 269-298.
Wisniewski, E. J., Lamb, C. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2003). On the conceptual basis for the count and mass noun distinction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5/6), 583-624.
Zanini, C., Benavides-Varela, S., Lorusso, R., & Franzon, F. (2017). Mass is more: The conceiving of (un)countability and its encoding into language in 5-year-old-children. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4), 1330-1340.